Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses three behavioral traits the structured fields do not: the feature flag is off by default, an API key is required, and each call costs $0.10. That is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot convey, though it omits whether a commit is reversible.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight fragments with parenthetical qualifiers — the gating facts (flag, cost, auth) are front-loaded and nothing is padded. The telegraphic style borders on cryptic, but no sentence is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the cost/flag/auth profile is covered. Still missing for a write/commit tool: whether the operation is idempotent or reversible, and what payload_hash must match — a material gap given three required parameters with no schema documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, and the description only gestures at two of them (payload_hash, owner_session_id) without explaining format, provenance, or purpose. proposal_id, request_id, and idempotency_key are left entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

It names a specific action ('Owner approve+commit') and the key credentials involved (payload_hash, owner_session_id), which implies it finalizes a proposal created by propose_life_update. But 'life update' is never defined and the verb phrase 'approve+commit' is compressed jargon, so an agent must infer the resource being mutated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'flagged; off by default' and 'API key required' give real gating conditions for when this call is permitted. However, it never names propose_life_update as the prerequisite step or explains when an owner should choose to commit versus leave a proposal pending.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.